Hello Everyone,


I agree with what Eric is trying to; changing the US Constitution. But what
he proposes is a mere "band aid" on the "hemorrhaging" of the body of the
United States Constitution. It is true that Article V gives the procedure for
the creation of conventions to "amend" the constitution, but what is really
needed is an entirely new constitution. Every modern democracy on Earth models
it's own constitution on that of the 1787 Consitution of the US. But at the
same time, those same countries have learned from the mistakes made by the US
and other countries with a democratic constitution, and we "must" do the same.
Making "minor" repairs on a two-hundred year old system for a 2006 world will
not repair it. A new constitution is necessary, and never requires the
"permission" nor the "consent" of that government, that the People have created;
and the people of any society wishing to alter or to eliminate. their
consitution, only have to use their "constituent" power of the people, and needs
NO
other authority except the permission of the people of that society. It is
the "political compact" as opposed to the "social compact" which created the
nation. The people may, at their desire, "alter", "change", or even "abolish"
any government that the people think is no longer willing or capable of
protecting that society.

The practice of using "conventions" to make constitutions dates back to the
"Instrument of Government " created by the Army of Oliver Cromwell in the late
1600's. It was used widely in America from that time on, to create
cnsitutions in many English colonies. In the US Supreme Court's "unanimous"
decision
in the McCulloch v Maryland (1819) case, in order to explain the courts
decsion to invoke the "commerce clause" to enable the US government to charter
banks, Chief Justice Marshal goes to great lengths to explain the "process"
which created the US Constitution of 1787 in the first place. During this
rationale, Marshal explains that it is entirely "unnecessary" to even go into a
discussion of whether or not it was "legal" to create a consitution by the
people, because that was a "long settled" issue, that need not be further
discussed in that decision. In other words, as far as that "unanamous" court was
concerned, including Chief Justice Marshal, it was an unquestioned "right" of
the people to create a constituiton, "without" the opinion or approval of any
government or it's agents, and as so greatly provided for in the Declaration of
Independence, as part of the many "inalienable rights" possessed by all men.

Therefore, the best way to "correct" a "defected" and "defunct"
Constitution, is to replace it, entirely with a new constitution, that "will"
provide a
"just", "good", and a "legitimate" government of the people. And the best way
to accomplish that is by a "proposal" of a new constitution by either a
"national convention" or by a single state government, or by the US Congress
itself, and after crafting a new constitution, it "must" be submitted "directly"
to the People to a popular vote, and accepted by a simple majority vote. This
is the "means" by which the United States of America, and the United Nations
have forced the Iraqis to construct and adopt their new constitution. We must
do "no less" than that which we impose on our former enimies. If we do not,
we betray ourselves and the whole world, and expose ourselves to being the
"demigods" that we would then be.

Most sincerely ,

Michael Mincy

888888888888888888888888888888888888

Revised 6/6/05---major changes----proposed amendments for regional houses of
representatives and senates(or unicameral legislatures) in addition to
existing state legislatures, creation of regional defense departments as well as
regional treasuries and the dismantling of those two departments in the
District of Columbia. Also, making federal reserve district banks regional
central
banks.



The following draft is in the process of being sent to state(not federal)
representatives and senators throughout the nation. If you find yourself in
general agreement, kindly forward to yours(faxes, office visits, and letters
most effective)---constituents always receive top priority!! :) Any feedback
you may have would also be appreciated. Thank you.





Sincerely,
Eric



Greetings. Article V of the Constitution allows for a Constitutional
Convention if 2/3 of the state legislatures vote to have one. All a
Constitutional
Convention does is propose amendments which are then sent back to the state
legislatures(or state conventions)
where 3/4 must sign off on them to become law. An increasing number of
individuals feel that the time has come for the calling of such a Convention
due to the federal government's:

1) failure to uphold the Constitution and secure our borders from massive
illegal immigration;
2) failure to forumulate a national energy policy aimed at decreasing our
dependence on foreign oil;
3) failure to address the issue of job outsourcing which has led to the
deterioration of our manurfacturing base in the U.S.;
4) failure to adequately administer the social security trust fund.

Be that as it may, if such a Convention were to be called, the theme should
be Returning Power to the States. The following amendments should be
proposed, with the Bill of Rights being "off the table" as a prerequisite for a
Convention. The aim here is to restructure government to better serve the
people
and the states, not eliminate freedoms:







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]